By: Peter Pike, Affirming "Sinners are justified
only once by grace alone through faith alone"

I would like to start this debate by thanking Kevin
Tierney for his interest in discussing such a worthy topic as
Justification, as well as realizing the importance of this discussion.
Every debate thesis needs to be clearly defined at the beginning, but if
ever there was a term that needed defining nearly every time it is used,
that term is "justification." The Protestant and the Catholic
may use the same word in similar contexts, and may even define
"justification" using similar words too-but the meanings could
not be more different. In fact, there is virtually no aspect of the
definition of justification that both Protestants and Catholics agree
on.

For that reason, before I define my own view (the
Reformed view) I will need to give a brief summary of the Catholic view,
which I'm sure Mr. Tierney will clarify even further for us in his
opening statement.

The Catholic View of Justification

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"Like
conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns
toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and
righteousness from on high. Justification includes the remission of
sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man. Justification
has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us
through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who
justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and
the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's
mercy" [1].

Here we see that justification includes "the
remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner
man." As such, justification involves a subjective change in the
individual who is justified. That person is himself sanctified and
renewed. The sinner is no longer a sinner, but instead actually becomes
a righteous person through the process of justification.

One point that must be clarified before we continue is
the mistaken Protestant idea that Catholics believe in salvation without
the need for grace. However, the issue has never been about grace. Both
sides agree that grace is necessary for justification, and therefore
salvation, to occur! As the Catechism above makes clear, Catholicism
teaches that man turns to God when he is "moved by grace."
Therefore, the Catholic, just as the Protestant, will say that man is
saved by grace.

The Council of Trent put it the following way.
Justification is "a translation from that state in which man is
born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the
adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our
Savior" [2]. Furthermore, Trent states that justification is
"not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and
renewal of the inward man through the voluntary reception of the grace
and gifts whereby an unjust man becomes just and from being an enemy
becomes a friend, that he may be an heir according to hope of life
everlasting" [3].

As you can see, this further reinforces the Catholic
position that justification involves a subjective change in the person.
Trent shows us that when an unjust man is justified, he moves from being
an enemy of God to being a friend of God, and it is on that basis
"that he may be an heir according to hope of life
everlasting."

The Council of Trent also discussed how it is that a
person can become justified when they said:

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning
of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God
through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any
merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut
off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace
to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to
and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of
man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does
absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also
reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace
of God to move himself to justice in His sight [4].

The Catholic
position according to the Council of Trent is that God moves in a
sinner's life and grants grace that the sinner may either accept or
reject Him. While this is done "without any merits on their
part" it is still necessary that sinners "convert themselves
to their own justification" by accepting God's predisposing grace.
If the sinner accepts the grace of God, then the sinner is made just
before God. However, since the decision depends on the choice of man,
justification is not a guaranteed result of the grace of God.
Furthermore, it is not a permanent action even when someone accepts
grace, because a Christian can still commit a mortal sin and lose the
grace of justification. Trent continues by saying: "Those who
through sin have forfeited the received grace of justification, can
again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain
through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ,
of the grace lost" [5]. As a result, for the Catholic justification
is something that can be gained and lost repeatedly, depending on the
actions of a person.

When we map out how a person is saved in Catholicism, we
discover that a sinner is justified by both the grace of God and by the
works that a person does or does not do (as sinful actions will result
in the losing of justification). The result of this is that Catholicism
teaches that faith alone cannot save, but must include also works. In
short: faith + works = salvation.

The Protestant View of Justification

In marked contrast to the Catholic view is the
historical Protestant view, specifically the Reformed Protestant view.
It is unfortunate that I have to make the distinction, but many modern
Protestant denominations would actually agree more with the Catholic
position on justification than with the Reformers. Let me quote from the
Westminster Confession of Faith for the Reformed understanding of
justification:

Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely
justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning
their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous;
not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake
alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other
evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing
the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and
resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have
not of themselves, it is the gift of God [6].

The Reformed view of
justification is that man is completely passive in his salvation. He is
saved when God pardons his sin and accepts him as righteous, which is
his justification. This is done "not for anything wrought in
them"-that is, there is no subjective change in the individual.
Furthermore, this justification comes apart from anything "done by
them." It is based solely on the work of Christ alone. The
Westminster Confession of Faith takes pain to point out that not even
faith is a meritorious act, for it is not faith itself that is imputed
as righteousness, but it is the "obedience and satisfaction of
Christ" that is imputed to the one who has faith. And even that
faith "they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."

Here you can see the two sides summarized and you should
now be able to grasp the issues we will need to discuss in this debate.
Is justification a "once for all" action whereby a sinner is
imputed "the obedience and satisfaction of Christ", or does
Justification "[conform] us to the righteousness of God" such
that we are subjectively righteous until we sin again, at which point
justification is lost? Does justification make a sinner permanently in
right standing with God because he has been legally declared righteous
before God, or does justification require sinners to "exert
themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery…of
the grace lost"? Is justification distinct from sanctification, or
are they both the same thing?

Since there is so much disagreement on the vital points
in this issue, we must turn to the only source of Truth that Catholics
and Protestants can agree on: the Holy Scriptures. Before delving deep
into the subject, let me provide just the basic framework of the
Protestant understanding of justification, with Scriptural support.

Original Sin

Original Sin is once concept that both Reformed
Protestants and Catholics agree on in principle. That is, both accept
that Original Sin has separated all who are born from God. The idea
finds its roots in several Old Testament passages, one of which is Psalm
51:5-"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother
conceived me." David is the author of this passage, and here he
proclaims the truth that Christians must accept if they are to consider
themselves Biblical believers: we are born in sin. That sin is not
referring to David's mother at all, but to David himself.

While this passage, and several others, allude to
Original Sin, it was Paul who gave us the framework in its clearest
sense. In Romans 5 we read the following words: "For as through the
one man's disobedience [Adam's sin] the many were made sinners, even so
through the obedience of the One [Christ] the many will be made
righteous" (Romans 5:19). In short, we are all made sinners through
the sin of Adam.

Total Depravity

The result of Original Sin is that all men are born
sinners, and are therefore depraved. The Calvinist talks of man being
"totally depraved" but this does not refer to a sinner being
as evil as possible. Rather, it means that the totality of a person is
evil, including spiritually, emotionally, and physically. This depravity
is a result of the fact of Original Sin, but each person is responsible
for his own sin, and his own sin only.

The passages that refer to the depravity of man are
innumerable. For just a sample listing, observe the following passages.
"There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who
understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside,
together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is
not even one" (Romans 3:10-12). "This is the judgment, that
the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather
than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil
hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds
will be exposed" (John 3:18-19). "Jesus answered them, 'Truly,
truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin'"
(John 8:14). "…The LORD said to Himself, 'I will never again
curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man's heart is
evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing,
as I have done'" (Genesis 8:21).

Here we see that man is depraved from his youngest
possible actions. Every intent of a man's heart is evil from youth.
There is no one who does good. And everyone who sins is a slave to sin.
These are all things that are true and must be taken into account.

Since we know that God is a just God, then the question
obviously arises-How can anyone be saved from this condition?
Catholicism, as well as most mainstream Protestant denominations today,
has an answer for this-God provides equal grace to all men, and it is up
to the person who receives that grace to decide whether or not he wants
to accept Christ. That is, God tosses out a life-line and whoever wants
to grab hold of it can be saved.

The Reformers saw it differently, and that is because (I
believe) the Bible teaches differently on this issue. While an argument
can be made that predestination has nothing to do with the doctrine of
justification, the historical Protestant definition of justification
cannot be understood without an understanding of predestination; for as
Paul wrote: "These whom He predestined, He also called; and these
whom He called, He also justified" (Romans 8:30).

Predestination

John chapter six is a passage that deals with the
unconditional election of God's people. It is unconditional in the sense
that God's election (or choosing) of a people to be saved has nothing to
do with those people themselves, but rather upon God and what God wants.
As we read in John 6:37, "All that the Father gives Me [Jesus] will
come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast
out." People try to get around the thrust of this passage, but it
couldn't be clearer: ALL whom the Father gives to Jesus WILL come to
Him. This is exactly what Jesus says in John 6:44-"No one can come
to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up
on the last day."

Since not all are saved, the question must be asked-why
aren't some saved? The answer, like so many others in Scripture, is
found in the same text. In John 6:64-65, Jesus Himself answers this
question. "'But there are some of you who do not believe.' For
Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who
it was that would betray Him. And He was saying, 'For this reason I have
said to you, that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him
from the Father.'"

So it is clear that the one who is saved is the one who
is enabled by the Father to come to Christ. It is also clear that some
will not believe because it has not been granted them from the Father.
Furthermore, we know that everyone who is given to the Son by the Father
will be raised up on the last day. The conclusions are obvious: the
Father elects those whom the Son will save, and the Father does not
elect everyone.

We see this once more in Romans 9. There we read the
following words:

"For He says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom
I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So
then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on
God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very
purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, that My name
might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.' So then He has mercy on
whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (Romans 9:14-18).

Paul then immediately answers all objections to this
doctrine by refuting them for us:

"You will say to me then, 'Why
does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' On the contrary,
who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not
say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it? Or does not
the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God,
although willing to demonstrate His wrath and make His power known,
endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
And He did this so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of
mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory" (Romans 9:19-23).

This passage could not be clearer. Salvation is
completely of God. It is totally dependent upon God. God is the mover,
the Savior, and the only one who does anything above.

Summary So Far

Man is born depraved due to Original Sin. He can do
nothing pleasing to God, and in fact is a slave to sin. The Father, in
His mercy, grants some to the Son for salvation, while others are
vessels of wrath, prepared beforehand for destruction. God, therefore,
is the only one doing anything. Man is completely passive in his own
salvation.

But while this is the bare-bones aspect of salvation, we
must dig deep into the system by which we are saved. Man is saved
through justification, which is the topic of this debate. In order for
justification to be biblically consistent, it must conform to the ideas
that we saw above. Neither the Roman Catholic system, nor the system of
belief of many mainstream Evangelicals today, is harmonic with the
Scripture already presented.

In order to demonstrate that the historical Protestant
version is Scriptural, and therefore correct, I will here demonstrate
that justification is a legal action, that it is based on the work of
Christ, that our own works cannot merit grace, that justification is
applied through faith alone, and that even this faith is a gift from
God.

The Legal Aspect of Justification

Words in foreign languages will sometimes have various
nuances that cannot be easily translated. Such is the case when dealing
with Justification. The Greek term (dikaios) translated as
"justification" is also translated as
"righteousness." Since two different words are used in
English, some nuances of a verse can become hidden in the translation
depending on which word the translator chooses to use.

Dikaios can refer to both a moral quality (such as when
it is translated as "righteousness") and a legal term (which
is the idea normally associated with the translation of
"justification"). It is my intention to demonstrate that when
Paul was using the term in passages referring to salvation, he was using
the term in its legal sense, not in the moral sense of the word. This is
an important distinction, because if the term is being used in a legal
sense, then the act of justification does not depend on any subjective
change in the individual, but is instead a legal declaration whereby God
declares a sinner to be just.

Before we look at Paul, it is wise to look at the Old
Testament to see the historical background Paul would be using. Let us
start with Exodus 23:7. This verse states: "Keep far form a false
charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not
acquit the guilty" (all passages, unless specifically indicated,
are from the NASB). This passage is clearly legal-"keep far from a
false charge"-and you can see the term "righteous" in the
passage-"do not kill the innocent or the righteous." In the
Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word used
for "righteous" is dikaion. But even more importantly, the
word translated as "acquit" in "for I will not acquit the
guilty" is the Greek word dikaioseis. In other words, the passage
is saying, "Do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will
not justify the guilty."

As Dr. James White points out in his book, The God Who
Justifies, "Obviously, this does not mean 'those who are sinlessly
perfect' but rather those who are innocent or righteous in the eyes of
the law. This is a legal, not a moral, description" [7].

Another interesting Old Testament passage is Deuteronomy
25:1. "If there is a dispute between men and they go to court…they
judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the
wicked…." The forensic, or legal, aspect of this text is obvious.
This passage refers to both a court and judges in that court. Again, the
Greek term translated both "justify" and "righteous"
in this passage is dikaios. Literally, the passage would read that
judges "justify the just and condemn the condemned."

These passages clearly show that the judges are making a
pronouncement as to whether or not someone is righteous or unrighteous.
Their judgments do not change the individuals-they were whatever they
were before going in. That is, the unjust man was unjust before the
judges pronounced him unjust. Therefore, the pronouncement does not
cause any change in the person.

This is especially clear from Isaiah 5:23, which says:
"Who justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the rights of
the ones who are in the right!" Here we see that wicked people are
"justified" by judges for a bribe. This justification does not
subjectively change the wicked into righteous people; rather, they are
merely seen as being righteous under the eyes of the law. Justification,
therefore, definitely carries with it a legal sense of the word
throughout the entire Old Testament.

Paul was certainly influenced by the Old Testament, and
also the Septuagint, as he would sometimes quote passages based on the
Septuagint wording rather than the Hebrew texts. It is no surprise to
see that Paul considers justification, as it relates to salvation, to be
a legal term. Nowhere is this more obvious than in Romans 8, where we
read:

"…and these whom He predestined, he also called;
and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He
justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If
God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but
delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give
us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the
one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who
died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who
also intercedes for us" (Romans 8:30-34).

We see the clear use of
legal terminology when Paul asks, "Who will bring a charge against
God's elect?" The term for "charge" has been widely
documented in secular Greek texts as being used in accusations in legal
proceedings. The natural context is to think of the legal courts. Who
brings a charge against the Elect? The question is phrased in such a way
as to demand a negative response: no one. Why? "God is the one who
justifies."

Imbedded in this text, however, we also see how it is
that God justifies people. It is "Christ Jesus…who also
intercedes for us." That intercession (also a legal term referring
to an appeal for another person) is the basis of our justification.

The Work of Christ

This brings us to our second point: Justification is
based on the work of Christ. It is imperative that we look back to the
Old Testament in order to fully understand what Christ's intercession
accomplished. It is a passage that clearly speaks on the issue of
Justification. I am speaking of Isaiah 53:11-12:

As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.

That this passage carries with it the legal sense is
clearly seen by the context here, as Christ "interceded for the
transgressors" (intercession is, naturally, a legal term).
Furthermore, we see that the Messiah "will justify the many, as He
will bear their iniquities." That is, Christ takes on the
iniquities of sinners. Thus, "He Himself bore the sin of many, and
interceded for the transgressors." This results in the fact that
God "will see it and be satisfied." That is, Christ's
intercession for transgressors, His bearing their iniquities, satisfies
God's judgment. It is therefore on the basis of Christ's work in
interceding for sinners that God finds sinners acceptable in His sight.
This view was seen earlier in Romans 8, when Paul writes: "Christ
Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right
hand of God, who also intercedes for us" (Romans 8:34).

Man's Works Cannot Merit Justification

Because it is Christ's work that God views, not man's
work, it is obvious that nothing man does can merit justification in any
way. This point is most easily proven by a simple look at Romans 4:1-8.
Here we find the following passage of Scripture:

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather
according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by
works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what
does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited
to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wage is not
credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not
work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is
credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on
the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and
whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD will
not take into account."

First we see that if someone is justified
by works, that person has something to boast about. Even so, this
boasting cannot occur before God. This is important to point out because
many people try to get off the hook by saying that if we do "so
little" for our faith, then we cannot boast before God. But it is
not boasting before God that Paul is concerned with-it is the ability to
boast at all in the first place!

Paul then uses a passage from the Old Testament to drive
his point home (we will look at this passage in more detail as the
debate unfolds). Abraham believed God, and his faith was credited
(imputed) as righteousness. Paul immediately says, "Now to the one
who works, his wage is not credited as a favor (literally "as
grace"), but as what is due." Given this context, the
implication is that it was a favor that the faith Abraham had was
credited to Him as righteousness. That is, it is an act of grace that
Abraham did not deserve. This act of grace occurs totally apart from
works, because it is "the one who does not work, but believes in
Him who justifies the ungodly, [whose] faith is credited as
righteousness."

Even if you do not understand Greek, you will learn a
striking fact from seeing the Greek text from the beginning of Romans
4:4 and 4:5. I have transliterated it below:

Romans 4:4
To the one working
To de ergazomeno

Romans
4:5
To the one not working but believing
To de me ergazomeno pisteuonti

These passages are clearly contrasting the same point.
First, the one who works does not have his wage credited as a favor
(literally: kata charin-"according to grace") but as a debt.
Second, the one who is not working, but believing, has his faith
credited as righteousness. The only difference between the way the two
passages is the word "not." The only conclusion we can draw is
that faith and works are polar opposites: "To the one who does not
work, but believes…"

This thought is actually demonstrated by Paul earlier in
the book of Romans when he writes the following:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has
been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the
righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who
believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short
of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the
redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a
propitiation in His blood through faith…. Where then is boasting? It
is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but a law of faith. For
we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the
Law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also?
Yes, of Gentiles also, since indeed God who will justify the circumcised
by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one." (Romans
3:21-25a, 27-30).

Here we see that justification is "a gift by His
grace." As we saw in Romans 4, works can never be credited "as
grace" for they are credited as what is due. This is Paul's
conclusion when he writes, "For we maintain that a man is justified
by faith apart from works of the Law."

Justification is by Faith Apart From Works

That works have no part in justification becomes even
more apparent when we continue in Romans 4. We read:

"For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants
that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through
the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs,
faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings
about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For
this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with
grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants…."
(Romans 4:13-16a).

First, it is important to point out that the promise
referred to in the above passage is the same one that Abraham believed
and had righteousness imputed to him for. That promise was based on
faith for a simple reason: "In order that it may be in accordance
with grace." Remember, we have already seen that grace is
diametrically opposed to works. But this passage also points out a very
important theological point. If it is obeying the Law (that is, works)
that brings about justification, then "faith is made void and the
promise is nullified" (Romans 4:14). Not only is it the case that
works destroy grace, but works also destroy faith and nullify the
promise, because the promise is based on faith, not by works.

We see this demonstrated further on in Romans 11 when
Paul writes, "In the same way then, there has also come to be at
the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. But if it
is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is
no longer grace" (Romans 11:5-6). Grace and works cannot both be
valid. It is either one or the other for, "if it is by grace, it is
no longer on the basis of works."

Faith Is A Gift From God

The final blow to the issue comes from the very nature
of saving faith. Faith itself is a gift of God. As Paul writes in the
book of Ephesians:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of
works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8,9).

Salvation is
completely and totally dependent upon God. Hebrews 12:2 tells us that
Christ is the "author and perfecter of our faith." Acts 13:48
says, "as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed"
and chapter 16:14 further tells us that God opened Lydia's heart
"to respond to the things spoken by Paul." Thus, faith is not
manufactured by man himself, but is also an act of grace given to men by
God.

God Does All The Work In Salvation

As such, man is completely passive in his own salvation.
All of the work is done by God. Perhaps the most beautiful illustration
of this comes from Titus 3:4-7.

"But when the kindness of God our Savior and His
love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which
we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy by the washing
of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out
upon us richly through Jesus Christ Our Savior, so that being justified
by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal
life."

Here we see the Trinity in action. The Spirit is poured upon
us by the Father through Jesus Christ. But it must be noted that all the
work is done by God. "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which
we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy." This
statement is key as it removes all possibilities of man doing anything
in his salvation. Dr. White points out:

The first item that strikes the mind is the use of the
aorist regarding the work of salvation. "He saved us" is past
tense, looking back upon the work of God. Next, the subject of the verb
is God. He did the saving. "Us" is the direct object of the
verb. Also striking from the Greek text is the fact that Paul places the
phrase "not by works which we did in righteousness" at the
beginning, giving it prominence. "He saved us" comes well into
the verse. He rushes to deny any ground for salvation outside of the
mercy of God, most specifically, "works done in
righteousness." In point of fact, he denies the possibility of a
mixture by positing the two as opposites: the use of "alla"
introduces a strong contrast, "not by this, but instead by
this." Since the text has God doing the action of saving, the
denial of the role of human actions, even though done in
"righteousness," is remarkable [8].

Summary So Far

To summarize everything so far for the Protestant view
of justification, you have seen that justification is a term that is
legal in its usage, that it is forensic in nature and does not cause a
subjective change in a person who is declared justified, that God
justifies us based on the work of Christ, that man's works cannot merit
justification, that justification is by faith apart from works, and that
even faith is a gift from God. The result is such that salvation is
completely by the work of God, and man's role in salvation is completely
passive.

This conclusion fits exactly with what we previously saw
as the overall plan of redemption. The important focus is the fact that
man does nothing in his salvation. It is all of God. The clearest and
most concise Biblical summary of the Gospel, in my opinion, can be found
in the first ten verses of the second chapter of Ephesians. There we
read the following:

And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which
you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to
the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in
the sons of disobedience. Among them we too all formerly lived in the
lusts of our flesh, indulging in the desires of the flesh and of the
mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest (Ephesians
2:1-3).

Let me stop there for a moment. Here you can see that we are all
born depraved sinners. As Paul put it, we all "were by nature
children of wrath." This is the state that all people start
from-children of wrath. But Paul also makes a distinction between
"us" and "them." That is, Paul is not speaking of
what God did for everyone, but only of what God did for those who are
saved.

"But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great
love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our
transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have
been saved)" (Ephesians 2:4-5).

The key thing to note here is that
God regenerated us (made us alive) "even when we were dead in our
transgressions." That means that God did not wait for us to do
anything on our part, but instead took the initiative Himself and made
us alive with Christ. For this reason it is said, "by grace you
have been saved." But there is more!

"and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him
in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He
might show the surpassing riches of his grace in kindness toward us in
Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:6-7).

God didn't only merely make us
alive with Christ and leave us to our own devices. No! He made us alive
"and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him in the heavenly
places." When God raised us to life, He went the whole way. There
is no gaining and losing justification-when you are saved, you are
lifted up and seated with Christ. This is not because of anything you
have done, because it is so "He might show the surpassing riches of
his grace."

"For by grace you have been saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of
works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in
Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we
would walk in them" (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Here we see the finale. We
are saved by grace through faith, not by works. There is a distinct
difference drawn here! Salvation has nothing to do with works, and
everything to do with grace! Works only come into play after we are
saved. "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for [or
unto] good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in
them." It is once we are seated with Christ in the heavenly realms
that works come into play, and then they are a result of our salvation,
not a cause of it.

This may perhaps be best illustrated by lightning and
thunder. Thunder is a result of lightning. Thunder must follow
lightning, but thunder never causes lightning. Lightning causes thunder,
and thunder follows. In the same way, works are a result of salvation,
but works do not cause salvation. Salvation causes works, and works
follow.

This is why James writes: "For just as the body
without the head is dead, so also faith without works is dead."
Works are a fundamental aspect of faith. Faith that does not produce
works is a dead faith-it does not save anyone. But always, always, we
must keep the order in our minds and not confuse them. While the
Catholic says, "Faith + works = salvation" the Protestant
says, "No. Faith = salvation + works." This is why it was said
that we are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.
Other things accompany faith, and the author of Hebrews makes this clear
in Hebrews 6:9-"But, beloved, we are convinced of better things
concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are
speaking in this way."

So What Does It All Mean?

If you've read this far it shows that you have a great
dedication or else too much free time on your hands! Or, more likely, it
shows that you, too, have an understanding of the importance of this
issue. So much more is riding on this than just ecumenicalism. There was
a reason that Martin Luther referred to justification as "articulus
stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae-the article of faith that decides whether
the church is standing or falling" [9]. Justification is nothing
less than the very heart of the Gospel.

There was a time when people felt secure enough to
proclaim this truth: what you believe about justification is what you
believe about the Gospel! Now, in an effort to offend as few people as
possible, any such statements are delegated to the roles of the
theological madmen. I am such a madman, however; and let me loudly say
that the Catholic idea of justification (and all the Protestant
denominations that essentially agree with the Catholic view) is not a
saving Gospel. This is not to say that all Catholics are damned, for I
have met some Catholics who understand this issue and actually agree
with the Reformed position, although why they remain in the Catholic
Church is beyond me.

Any Gospel that does not have God doing all the work and
man merely passively receiving salvation is not a Gospel of grace, but
is instead one of works. It does not matter if the result is so
magnificent compared to such trivial labor as faith-any work done by
humans at all destroys grace. Grace can only be grace when it is
received with the empty hand of faith-the empty hand that does not even
bring its delusions of self-creation with it. The faith that saves is
the faith that realizes our utter dependence upon Christ for everything,
including our very faith. As the man with a demon-possessed child told
Christ so long ago, "I do believe; help my unbelief!" (Mark
9:24).

This is the only valid faith. Then, after this, comes
the works; works that testify to our faith, but in no way cause it. This
is the true Gospel.

A Quick Objection Answered

Since I still have a little space left to write, let me
"pre-empt" some of the arguments that you may hear from Mr.
Tierney. I do not know for certain where he will come from, so I will be
sticking to the basic Roman Catholic arguments I have heard so far.

The most common argument is, of course, James chapter
two. Many Catholics will say, "The Bible only speaks of 'faith
alone' once, and that's in James 2:24, where it says, 'You see that a
man is justified by works and not by faith alone.'" But this
surface level reading of the text does no justice to the words of James!

The first problem that the Catholic apologist runs into
is the fact that words must be defined by their author in the context
they are written in. James and Paul are not speaking in the same way, or
else we'd have a direct contradiction between James 2:24 and Romans
3:28. The context immediately must be established.

When we look at Romans, the book is a systematic defense
of the Gospel. Paul starts in Romans 1 by demonstrating that the truth
of God is plainly revealed to all men so that no man has an excuse for
not believing. He goes on in the second chapter to demonstrate that both
Jew and Gentile alike are sinners. Then, in chapter three, he discusses
the systematic way in which sinner can be saved-the detailed schematics.
In short, Romans is a handbook for theology. It is the Gospel plan made
simple.

James, on the other hand, is exhorting believers to do
good works. This section in James 2 has no radical break from the
beginning of the book, nor does it shift in chapter three. James is
speaking to Christians about how Christians should be living.

What is James' point in James 2? It is simply that faith
without works is a dead faith. That is all, plain and simple. What must
be understood is that James is not just looking at faith in general, but
a dead faith-one that is not backed by works! When he writes, "What
use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no
works? Can that faith save him?" he is referring specifically to
dead faith.

In this passage, we also come to the secondary meaning
of the term "justify." Justification does not always carry
with it its legal definition. In fact, sometimes it means a
demonstration of something, such as when we say, "Justify your
position on abortion." We know that we are not legally declaring
something righteous, but we are instead "proving" something to
be so when we justify our position on something.

James uses justification the same way in James 2. So
when we read, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when
he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?" (James 2:21) we know
that the justification is referring to the demonstration of his faith.
But I am not the only person who thinks this! Consider the following
quote:

The hardest term to translate here is dikaioun,
primarily because of its frequent use by Paul in contexts opposing
righteousness by faith and "works of the law" …. The precise
meaning in each case must be determined by context, not some general
theological concept. Given the previous statements demanding the
demonstration of faith, the translation here as "shown to be
righteous" seems appropriate (see Hort, 63, "appear to be
righteous in God's sight," and Marty, 104, "God sanctions his
righteousness")…. It is in this light that the present
translation renders the Greek as "shown to be righteous"
(2:21, 24), for the entire line of argument here has involved demonstration: "show me your faith apart from deeds, and by my
deeds I will show you may faith (2:18)" [10].

Some have argued that
this cannot be a demonstration since only Abraham saw it. While this
ignores Isaac, it also ignores the countless millions of people who have
since read Genesis and found faith demonstrated by Abraham. Furthermore,
while it is possible contextually for James to be referring to a
demonstration of Abraham's righteousness, it is nowhere possible for
Paul to have been speaking of justification in anything other than the
legal sense of the word, as stated above. If Scripture is to be kept
unbroken and not pitted against itself in a contradiction, the Catholic
understanding of James 2 must be rejected. There is no way Paul could
have been speaking differently than the historical Protestant position
claims, and since we have provided a possible interpretation of James
that does not require us to abandon either Paul or the rest of the body
of Scriptural evidence, we are left to interpret Scripture with
Scripture and say that James cannot be speaking of the same type of
justification as Paul is.

I am sure that Mr. Tierney will have more to say about
James 2 in his opening statement or in his rebuttal, so I will let this
matter drop for now. Suffice it to say that the historical Reformed
Protestant position is both consistent with itself and consistent with
Scripture. While there are a few passages that seem to hint, at first
glance, at meanings opposite of the Reformed views, any meaningful
exegesis of the text will prove that there are no counter-arguments
against the Reformed position on the several positive texts that I can
put forth, and there are several interpretations that are at least
possible, if not likely, for the "tricky" verses that I can
posit. I therefore submit that the Biblical Christian must accept the
Reformed doctrine of justification or else abandon the term
"Biblical" in his title.